Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 207 CTCL 985 - Cetron Electronic Corp.

Cetron Electronic Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

1975

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
September 2016
most recently cited

1 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently September 2016

1 federal appellate ·

8019751980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Applies 26 U.S.C. § 6672 · 5 U.S.C. § 552 (Freedom of Information Act)

Relies on United States v. Nixon · National Labor Relations Board v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. · Renegotiation Board v. Bannercraft Clothing Co. · Renegotiation Board v. Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corp. · Soucie v. David

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “There is no common-law privilege of the general nature asserted by defendant here. The common law speaks only of executive privilege and of such things as attorney-client, husband-wife, and priest-penitent privilege. Cf. Kaiser Alum, & Chem. Corp. v. United States, 141 Ct.Cl. 38, 45 , 157 F.Supp. 939, 944 (1958). Further, it is clear from the legislative history of the Federal Rules of Evidence that Congress rejected the concept of governmental [deliberative process] privilege against disclosure of official information in favor of the general reference in Rule 501 to those privileges recognized by the Constitution, statute, and the common law. [See annotations to Rule 501 and to proposed Rule 509 rejected by Congress.]”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “[The] mere presence of opinion, conclusions, and recommendations, not trial preparation material, is no protection against discovery when relevance and a genuine need is shown for their discovery ... Counsel for the Government should not be permitted to determine what evidence the court will permit to be discovered by exercise of such a unique pretext as it now advances.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Both doctrines are said to have a similar basis, however, in public policy which favors candid discussion between subordinates and superiors in Government. It is argued that such discussion would be handicapped by the possibility of disclosure and, thus, the decisionmaking process would be impeded.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.